(954) 344-2889

Recent Significant Officially Reported-Published Winning Cases:

State v. Henderson, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 193a
State v. Haser, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 995a

Recent Cases/Victories: 

(This page last updated December, 2007)

December 2007 (Jury Trial)  Defendant was arrested by Coral Springs Police late one evening police after allegedly fleeing and eluding police 'high speed' on a motorcycle (a Felony) and then resisting arrest after he was said to have abandoned the bike in someone's driveway and then allegedly fleeing another officer on foot. A perimeter was setup and K9 Units along with several officers were said to be involved in the incident.  The State was unable to prove that the Defendant knowingly and intentionally did anything illegal that night and he was acquitted of all charges after 2 days of trial.

June 2007 (Trial)  Defendant was stopped by police after being clocked by Stalker Radar at 101 mph in a 70 zone.  There were other vehicles on the road at the time of the alleged offense.  He also had "2 children in the backseat" according to the officer. A Mandatory appearance ticket before a judge was issued under the new Florida Speeding Law.  Defense prepared an affidavit of defense pursuant to the Traffic Rules so the client did not have to appear in court and at trial, requested the production of all required speed measuring equipment documents from the officer (who showed up for court) such as logs, certifications, records for the unit used, etc.  Defense was able to argue that based on the terrain and the direction/speed the officer was traveling it was possible the officer may have clocked another vehicle on the road.  There was also some question as to whether the officer was using his radar unit in stationary or moving mode - which could make a huge difference in the speed calculations. Defense also had manuals for the unit showing that speed could have been + or - 2 mph but ONLY IF USED CORRECTLY. Defendant was not convicted of this offense.

May 2007  Defendant was sleeping in a vehicle when she was awoken by police. In the confusion she gave police a false name when questioned and was then arrested for false use of identity. Because of certain mitigating factors, counsel convinced the State to admit her into a PTI program since this was her first significant run-in with the law and then drop all charges on her successful completion of the program

May 2007. (Trial) Defendant was clocked by Police Radar (Stalker II) at 90 mph on the Sawgrass Expressway. He was also allegedly 'paced' by the same officer.  Prior to trial, public records requests were made by counsel regarding the maintenance of the radar unit, the officers training on that unit, the methods used for testing the radar prior to use and the odometer certification for the officer's vehicle.  At trial, an officer from another city was called to testify by Defendant.  After it was determined the police officer was acting outside of his jurisdiction and had no legal authority to issue a speeding citation to the Defendant. The case was completely Dismissed. 

February 2007. Defendant, driving with an expired tag, was stopped and charged with possession of marijuana (under 20 g) and as a third-time offender with criminal Driving While License Suspended. Defendant faced a 5-year driver's license suspension as a 'Habitual Traffic Offender' and up to a year in jail. Counsel had knowledge of a special proceeding available to those certain individuals charged and qualified for this special new proceeding.  Defendant was accepted into the program, completed it successfully, retained her driver's license and paid some court costs on the drug possession charge.

February 2007. Defendant was convicted of speeding 110 mph in a 70 mph zone and order to pay over $500 in fines, was assessed points and attend driving school.  Her insurance went from $549 to $2855 (per 6 months).   Defendant retained this law firm to appeal or vacate her conviction.  After applying to the Court for relief and 4 months of good driving with no moving violations, the court vacated her prior conviction and took away the points and her insurance company reinstated her at the lower rate.

February 2007. Defendant was charged with criminal Driving While Licensed Suspended/ Revoked due to a recent Racing Conviction (where he was represented by another law firm.)  The Defense was able to prove the Defendant never received notice of his suspension from the other law firm or Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles before he was caught driving and the State dismissed (nolle prossed) the DWLS before trial.

January 2007.  Defendant was charged with Felony DWLS – driving while a Habitual Traffic Offender under 322.34 (5) when she was stopped for an expired tag.  The Defense vacated a DWLS conviction in a prior criminal case where the Defendant did not have a lawyer present and was also wrongfully convicted under the law.  She was able to get the HTO status removed and her driver’s license back had her driving privileges fully restored.  Despite this, the State could still proceed under recent case law.  During the Felony case, Defendant also offered proof that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles did not notify her of the alleged suspension in accordance with law, that the driving record was in err and the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was a Habitual Traffic Offender.  The State dismissed the Felony in open court before trial.

September 2006.  Defendant was arrested and charged with Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Battery.  The Defense was able to impeach the credibility of the witnesses through testimony given at a previous Civil Restraining Order hearing. Defense announced ready for trial and the State dismissed all charges against Defendant on the day of trial.

September, 2006. Defendant was charged with DUI after allegedly driving on the sidewalk, almost hitting a police car, dropping his wallet out the window and failing sobriety tests. He also below over a .11 on the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath machine.  Defense was able to show that police failed to properly observe him during the 20 minute period preceding the breath test and the Judge Granted the Defense Motion to Suppress Evidence.  The State still decided to proceed on the common law DUI charge.  The case was ready for trial and the State dropped the DUI charge on the morning of trial.

2005.  Defendant was arrested by police on a Friday night on a civil pickup order/contempt charge and ordered held by a judge over the weekend in county jail without bond.  This firm was retained and advised that in civil cases, a bond purge amount was not posted as required by law.  We requested an emergency hearing by the duty judge on a Sunday and Defendant was immediately released from jail when he posted bond.

2006.  Defendant was arrested by police and held on charges he committed Grand Theft/Burglary. The Defendant maintained he was not the the individual police were looking for since he was incarcerated at the time of the alleged crime and could not possibly be guilty. A Motion to Dismiss charges was made, the case against the Defendant was dismissed after the hearing and the Defendant was later released.

July 2005.  Defendant was stopped by police for allegedly having no license plate lamp on his van and for acting suspiciously by an off-duty deputy in a residential neighborhood at 3:00 a.m.  He performed poorly on the roadside test caught on video and blew a .21 on the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath machine.  Defendant moved to suppress the illegality of the stop by offering proof the Defendant in fact had working tag lamps on the night of incident and in a very unique motion, asked to judge to view the evidence (vehicle) which was ordered to courthouse parking lot.  The stopping officer/deputy failed to appear for the hearing and the State attempted to offer testimony of the arresting officer who could not testify about the condition of the tag lights.  Defendant was placed in back of the vehicle and told to stand in front of the license plate by police so the true evidence  - the condition of the lights were in fact working were hidden from view on the police video. The State dropped the DUI case during the hearing before the judge decided the case.

2005. Defendant, who was driving on a DUI Suspension/Revocation was allegedly involved in a minor traffic crash and shortly afterwards, was found sleeping in a parked vehicle by police.  He was charged with operating without a license and leaving the scene of an accident.  The State usually demands jail time when someone drives on a DUI Suspension.  There was no evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the crash.  The Defendant paid court costs and did not receive a conviction on any criminal charge.

May 2006.  Defendant was stopped for going through a red light at a major intersection.  She smelled from alcohol and submitted to a sobriety test which police videoed and claimed she failed.  She blew an .086 on the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath machine.  The Defendant complained of menstrual cramps and pain on the video and insisted she needed to use the bathroom.  Police failed to allow her to use a rest room and forced her to do roadside tests.  Defense filed a barrage of motions attacking the stop, arrest and admissibility of the breath test.  The Defense announced Ready for Trial.  The State dropped the DUI just before trial as the video was completely contradictory to what police wrote in their report.

(TRIAL) 2005. Defendant was charged with causing serious injuries in a car crash.  During trial, the alleged victim was unable to identify the Defendant as the one driving the vehicle that hit her.  The accident report privilege asserted by the Defense prevented the officer (who did not witness the crash) from testifying as to the identity of the Defendant. The Defendant was found Not Guilty.

July 2005.  Defendant was stopped for allegedly going 90 MPH on 441 and was "pace clocked" by police.  At the Deposition of the police officer, he embellished his testimony by stating the Defendant also "spun his wheels."   He noticed the smell of alcohol on his breath, red eyes, flushed face and slurred speech and was detained while other officers responded to the scene.  It is alleged he failed the roadside exercises and he was then arrested for DUI.  He blew a .086 on the Intoxilyzer.  On July 6, 2005, we won a landmark case in Broward County Court (State v. Haser, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 995a) regarding the police officer's failure to videotape a DUI stop and arrest where the City (Coconut Creek) had a written policy in effect requiring the Department to do so.  The DUI case against the Defendant was thrown out of Court. Read the full decision  This reported case has set legal precedent and is being used by lawyers to defend similar DUI matters in Florida and other parts of the country.

(JURY TRIAL)  April 2005. Defendant was stopped for speeding and charged with Felony DUI (his 4^th DUI in Florida).  He had slurred speech, red eyes, flushed face, he admitted to drinking alcohol and performed poorly on roadside tests which were done on the side of a busy highway with uneven payment.  The Defendant refused the breath test and the entire incident including the roadside tests and refusal were captured on video including the alleged speeding.  Defendant was facing up to five (5) years in Florida State Prison and a permanent license revocation if convicted and the case was vigorously prosecuted by the State Attorney.  After a two-day trial, Defense was able show the jury that there was not enough evidence to convict him for DUI beyond to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt and used the video and conflicting statements by the officers as the main argument.  After deliberating for over three hours, the Jury advised the judge they were unable to reach a unanimous decision.  In a strategic move, Defense requested an “Allen Charge” be read to the jury at that time.  The State requested they be sent back to further deliberate.  The Jury was hopelessly hung and a mistrial was declared.  The State later dropped the DUI in a subsequent proceeding.

(TRIAL) August 2004. Defendant was charged with Resisting Arrest Without Violence early in the morning after a night out in South Beach when police stopped him for allegedly riding a scooter in the wrong lane.  The Defendant maintained his innocence and during trial, cross examination of the police officer demonstrated that the elements of resisting arrest were not present and the State failed to prove its case.   After trial, the Defendant was acquitted of all charges.

2005. Defendant was arrested by police for Aggravated Assault with a Firearm at a Mall for allegedly pulling a gun and threatening to kill someone.  He was facing very serious penalties if charged and convicted.  This firm was quickly retained and after we obtained a copy of the 911 tape, it was apparent from the audio that the Defendant was in fact the victim, not the aggressor as alleged by police.  An experienced investigator (for the defense) was sent to the scene shortly after the incident and he obtained several recorded statements from witnesses who supported Defendant's version of the facts and based on this evidence which was transcribed and provided to the State, they No-Filed the case and declined prosecution.

October 2005.  After police allegedly received an anonymous tip of a possible drunk driver hitting a curb, Defendant was stopped for allegedly riding on a rim while she was turning into her development.  He noticed the smell of alcohol on her breath, red eyes, flushed face and slurred speech and was detained while other officers responded to the scene.  It is alleged she failed nearly fell down during the roadside exercises and she was then arrested for DUI.  She also refused to blow on the breath machine. On October 21, 2005, we  won the matter of State v. Henderson 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 193a (Broward County Criminal Court) where the judge granted the Defendant's Motion to Suppress all evidence because of an illegal stop.  The Court held the anonymous tip was not sufficiently corroborated by police prior to the stop. The tipster failed to identify himself, did not correctly describe the Defendant's vehicle and the tip did not describe any criminal activity. The Court also held that riding on a flat tire was not a per se traffic violation. The DUI case against the Defendant was thrown out of Court. Read the full decision

2005. Defendant, a convicted Felon, was charged with Felony Burglary of an Occupied Dwelling and was facing a minimum of 32 months in Florida State Prison. When defense counsel received the discovery from the State, the videotaped statement was omitted and after obtaining a copy of the tape, it was determined the detective violated the law by promising the defendant he would "not be prosecuted" if he confessed. Defense counsel made a Motion to Suppress the confession based on the illegal activity of police and just prior to the hearing, the State agreed to a non-jail sentence and probation.

2005. Defendant, a convicted Felon, was charged with Grand Theft from a car wash.  He was held at gunpoint by the owner. After a deposition of the State's witness and a detailed review of the discovery, it was argued that the State could not prove the amount alleged stolen and that police may have coerced a confession from the Defendant from mistreatment at the scene. The Felony Grand Theft charge was dropped.

2006. Defendant who was on a DUI license suspension was stopped for a traffic violation and charged with criminal DWLS/R. The State wanted jail time. Since defense counsel had the underlying DUI charge dismissed and the client was technically eligible for a hardship license, we were able to convince the Court to accept a no-contest plea in open court on an amended charge and pay simple court costs with no jail or probation or further license suspension.

2006. Defendant with no previous criminal record was stopped for allegedly making an improper lane change onto I-595 and then given a total of seven (7) tickets, arrested and taken to jail when he argued with the officer and refused to sign the tickets (a separate misdemeanor charge).  It was demonstrated in court that the Defendant had a language problem and did not understand the officer's instructions when he was told to sign the citations.  Also, since the officer clearly overreacted by "writing him up" with an unusual amount of tickets, the state agreed to a "Withhold of Adjudication" (no conviction) on the refusal charge and he paid court costs only. All remaining six traffic citations were dismissed.

2004.  After a car crash where serious injuries occurred to an occupant of the vehicle, a blood sample was requested from the Defendant at the hospital where it is alleged she consented to the test. The Defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI.  Defense counsel was able to show that police violated FDLE rules and procedures regarding the taking, storage and analysis of blood. Also, since the police were unable to establish chain of custody on the blood sample and the officer had no probable cause to make an arrest for DUI, the case against the Defendant was dismissed by the Judge at a Motion to Suppress hearing.

2005. Defendant was detained after a school security officer allegedly observed him smoking marijuana outside of the school. When police arrived they also found a weapon in his belongings.  Because the belongings were not in the the defendant's possession during the initial observation, and there was no evidence the defendant used or was about to use the weapon, defense counsel was able to convince the state to drop the weapon's charge so the defendant would not receive any conviction nor receive a driver's license suspension on the drug possession charge.  He had to pay some small court costs and has no criminal conviction as a result of this case.

2006. Defendant was allegedly caught with a power tool "inside" his pants at Home Depot. He was detained while police were called and then charged with Shoplifting (Petit theft). Since it was shown that the Defendant had not actually left the premises when he was stopped, the state agreed to let the Defendant pay court costs only with no "shoplifter's school" and no conviction on his record.

2005.  Defendant was charged with Criminal Driving While License Suspended With Knowledge (DWLS).  If convicted, this charge could have been counted toward a separate habitual traffic offender (HTO) charge. Prior to arraignment, defense counsel determined the client was eligible for a rarely used procedure to nullify the criminal charge and have the DWLS charge not counted towards a HTO charge.  The State was forced to drop the criminal case and the client did not receive a conviction.

2005. Defendant was charged with two counts of Violation of Probation when he tested positive for marijuana.  The test he took was not an approved test for the accurate detection of drugs and after defense presented a new test result from a different lab, the probation office agreed to drop the charges and his probation was ended, he was completely released from probation and free to go.

2005.  Defendant was charged with first-time shoplifting when she was caught by store security putting perfume from a tester at the cosmetic counter into her purse. The Defendant had no explanation as to why she did this.  Police were called and she was charged with Misdemeanor Petit Theft. The Defense argued that ingredients of the perfumes (alcohol and special fragrance) combined with the client's age may have caused her to become temporarily intoxicated by the strong odor and could have impaired her judgment. Due to the circumstances and the client's clean prior record, the State agreed to drop the charge if Defendant completed a simple pre-trial intervention program and she now has no criminal record.

(TRIAL) 2005. Client retained this firm to represent her in a divorce.  The husband alleged he had 'back injuries' which prevented him from working so he could not pay child support or any bills.  He did not introduce competent medical evidence to prove this. This firm presented evidence of the lengthy marriage, the money the husband earned throughout the years and his ability to presently work.  After trial, the judge agreed, imputed $40,000 per year of income to the husband despite his claims, awarded the wife her divorce, custody of her children and child support based on the $40,000 of imputed earned income.

(JURY TRIAL) 2006.  Defendant was charged with Burglary as a violent felon/habitual offender and found fighting with the alleged victim on the street outside his business and facing possible life imprisonment.  During the trial, Mr. Mermer uncovered evidence in photographs which indicated that the victim may have fabricated his story and that the Defendant may have actually been the victim and never inside the premises.   After deliberating for several hours, the jury requested to view the photographs again. Minutes later, the jury found the Defendant NOT GUILTY.

(BENCH TRIAL) 2005.  Defendant was charged with Contempt by the State Child Support Enforcement for allegedly owing his ex-wife about $40,000 in back child support from an out-of-State judgment.  His driver's license was also suspended by the Department.  This firm was retained and at the hearing, we provided evidence that the money alleged owed was not as claimed and the State's records were inaccurate as to be believed for any amount. The entire matter was dismissed and the Defendant was not found in contempt or ordered to pay any money.

2006. Defendant was charged with causing a traffic accident with injuries.  The charging document, in this case, the traffic citation issued by police was vague in that it did not properly specify how Defendant was alleged to be careless.  Based on a Robinson Motion, the case against Defendant was dismissed without costs, fines or a license suspension.

2006.  Defendant was charged with Speeding by Radar well in excess of the speed limit inside the Heron Bay Development in Parkland/Coral Springs. Defense argued that the posted limit inside Heron Bay was illegal under Florida Law 316.183, that the Municipalities have not complied with 316.183 and that BSO or police have no legal authority to issue speeding tickets inside this private development. Case dismissed- no points/no fine.

2006.  Defendant was charged with allegedly speeding in a school zone.  It was argued by the Defense that the time stated by the officer was not the actual time and in fact, the school zone was over and the crossing guards were gone. Also, the sign was not visible as required by law.  Case dismissed- no points/no fine. 

2006. Defendant was charge with an 'illegal lane change'.  Police issued the citation with the wrong statute and Defendant asserted that his lane change was not illegal. Case dismissed - no points/no fine.

2006.  Defendant was charged with traveling at a high rate of speed (pace clocked) on a busy highway.  Certain parts of the road are State, other parts are City run and also part of the County road system.  Police cited Defendant with the wrong statute and the case was dismissed - no points/no fine.

2005.  Defendant was charged with an alleged cracked windshield and stopped by police. Motion to Dismiss granted-  no points/no fine.

2006.  Defendant was stopped for an alleged tint violation and issued a citation. The car window in question was not up all the way. Case was dismissed - no points/no fine.

2007. Defendant was $3000 she allegedly owed to a a wireless company for past service.  The wireless company failed to produce a contract that was signed by the Defendant and the Defense appeared in court ready for trial.  The claim was dropped after evidence was presented that showed the Defendant was the victim of identity theft and could not possibly have incurred the charges as alleged. 

These are actual cases of some recent victories where Mr. Mermer was lead or co-counsel except as otherwise indicated. Dates posted are approximate.  Legal Disclaimer:  This is not a track record of every case, but a representative sample of some recent victories we feel are significant.  We believe everyone deserves the best defense and there are legal defenses to be presented in nearly every case.  The facts of every case are unique and we cannot guarantee results on any case or represent you will achieve the same result - in other words, just like with investing or trading, past performance is no guarantee of future results. To protect the privacy of the client, their name and case number are not posted on any non-published case.